Last Word Panel Discusses the Merits of a Primary Challenger to President Obama
Lawrence O'Donnell and hosted a panel segment with Rep. Alan Grayson, the rabbi Michael Lerner, Jane Hamsher and Ralph Nader discussing the merits of a primary challenger to Barack Obama in 2012. Alan Grayson resisted answering whether he'd be willing to challenge the president, even though his name is one that comes up often in liberal circles with potential candidates to challenge Obama.
The panel agreed that they didn't think that the Democratic party needs a spoiler this time around and didn't think that anyone who might challenge the president would have much of a chance of winning, but they all agreed that there had better be some push back from the left to pull the president back to the middle after his hard tack to the right and his willingness to coddle up to Mitch McConnell and the Republicans and their tax cuts for the rich.
Lawrence O'Donnell also made up for his extremely rude behavior when Alan Grayson was on the show the previous night and apologized to him in the first part of this panel discussion which is not included here.
More on their discussion below the fold.
When asked if President Obama’s proposal had any hope of making it to the floor of the House or if we would just get more business as usual here, Grayson said he felt that the vote Democrats took was more than symbolic and that unless there were some major changes to the proposals, it would not come up for a vote on the floor of the House and that Nancy Pelosi would keep her promise to the caucus.
Michael Lerner explained why he thought President Obama should face a primary challenger. As Lerner noted, there’s a “massive disaffection among most Democrats” that’s been wildly underestimated by our media and by President Obama and how the president has abandoned liberals on one issue after another and refused to show any backbone.
As he pointed out if we want “to move Obama in any way, there has to be a serious political alternative” and the only way to do that is to run a “serious alternative” in the Democratic primary. Lerner talked about the amount of email he’s received and that most agree with him that this is the only way to push the president back in a progressive direction.
And I love this point that Lerner made about how most people don’t even realize what progressives or liberals stand for with allowing Obama to be painted as a liberal, or a progressive, or sadly a Socialist.
LERNER: And most Americans don’t even know what liberals and progressives are. They think Obama is the progressive. And if they think Obama is the progressive and the right wing calls him a Socialist, they have no idea that there are actually huge numbers of the people who really care for ordinary people, who care for the well being of each other, who don’t believe that the world can be made safe through domination and control, but recognize that the way to build homeland security is through generosity, through a global Marshall plan…
And then O’Donnell cut him off when he was on a roll and asked him who he might support as a primary challenger to Obama. Lerner named Russ Feingold and Jane Hamsher immediately shot down how that prospect was extremely unlikely.
Ralph Nader who is talking about running against President Obama in a primary talked about the need to pull Obama back to the left and how there might be quite a few very well qualified candidates that would be taken seriously if they ran against Obama. He also made some really great points on how we’re not spending enough time talking about what’s happened to the wages of the average worker and how we need to quit giving tax cuts to businesses when those cuts aren’t tied into them paying their work force more so they can earn a living wage as well.
And as I mentioned before, Grayson declined to say whether he’d challenge Obama or not in a primary race but did say he’d be a lot happier seeing Obama pushed back to the left and getting his base reignited to vote for him again and that he felt it wasn’t too late for Obama to still do that.
All in all I think it was a good discussion about what we're facing now and what we do to move Obama back to the left and at this point, I tend to agree with them that a primary challenge if it forces him to defend abandoning what he campaigned on or start governing in the manner he campaigned on might not be such a bad idea and might be our only hope of moving him.
He just took the hippie punching to a new level when he embraced these Bush tax cuts and setting up Social Security for bankruptcy with this latest deal with the Republicans. I think that's a line in the sand none of us should be willing to cross no matter how bad the threats from the hostage takers.
And I could go on from there with what I think about all of this and what we should do as liberals to solve our current dilemma, but I won't because frankly, I'm just exhausted and disgusted right now and I don't have any answers to how we deal with this and what's going to work to move our politicians to do what's right. I'm just another average person who works for a living and considers myself lucky to still have a job in this terrible economy and who is horrified by watching what's going on around me and to those who are not as fortunate as I am. I'm also fully aware that myself or anyone else who is still working is only one disaster away from finding ourselves in the same state as well, even if you have a job that most would consider secure, so none of us should be taking what we have for granted in this environment.
I find myself fearing that we're going to be seeing uprising like we're seeing in Europe now in America before anything gets any better and before our political class finally starts caring about the average working person instead of their wealthy campaign donors. It's a sad state of affairs that it might come to that to finally get our politicians, especially those on the right, to show any concern for the masses that are suffering before they change their ways. They've got those teabaggers sand bagged for now. They had better be worried about what happens when the suckers finally turn on them.
I've had quite enough of O'Donnell and the way he treats guests who he disagrees with. If I wanted a bully who cuts people off, misrepresents what they say, and seems to have contempt for anyone who values principles over process - then I might as well watch O'Reilly or Limbaugh. I'll take someone with some vigor and fresh perspective, like Cenk Uygur, rather than trying to endure another minute of Lawrence O'Donnell's cynicism and limited vision.
... but it is safe to assume you've never seen Cenk in action.
Ah, the "concerned" and their false analogies...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
On the contrary, I've been a regular viewer of Cenk on The Young Turks for quite some time - long before he started subbing for hosts on MSNBC. I think his perspective is fresh and energized, and is unapologetic when it comes to fighting for progressive values. Which is just the sort of thing that O'Donnell often seems more than happy to mock and marginalize.
...Lerner was going on and on and on.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Yes, Lerner was going on and on. I was referring to how O'Donnell has been treating any of his guests who weren't supporting Obama's tax compromise, and what prompted his apology to Alan Grayson earlier in this segment (not shown in this video clip, but referred to in the text).
A progressive challenge to Obama should not occur via the Dem. party as it has proven itself no better than the repubs in challenging the corporatocracy. Perhaps a Green ticket with Feingold, Grivalda, Sanders, or any of the Progressive women now holding State or National office or from academia may stir enough interest among Dems. to re-evaluate their commitment to the people to effect a change in priorities. Failing that, a Progressive ticket may spur the start of a movement which in time could gain momentum. I know there is fear of a renewed repub. nightmare but the dems. with their wretched blue dogs don't offer much solace. It's time that people who share humane instead of monetary values stand up to the prevailing corruption of both factions of our single party oligarchy.
berniem said:
It's time that people who share humane instead of monetary values stand up to the prevailing corruption of both factions of our single party oligarchy.
I want to see this on billboards across the country!
thank you!
:-"-:
where you placed those billboards. Most americans will need a dictionary for that one.
I understood it.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
100 x smarter than the average Texan.
These people are nuts!
Obama has NO chance of winning. None what so ever! Zero, zilch, nada!
They better d**n well realize this soon and dump his sorry DLC a**. Because iIf they think liberals are gonna vote for this DLC corporate coke sucker again by default (lesser of two evils), then they didn't learn a d**n thing from their November shallacking.
I wouldn't vote for Obama again under any circumstance; and I have heard almost every life-long liberal I know say the same thing. I have been astonished at the vitriol of some 65+ folks who voted democrat and union their entire life, and absolutely hate this sell-out SOB.
The only chance the democrats have, is to find a real democrat to run. Of course, by the time president O'bluedog gets finished, Jesus himself would be unelectable as a democrat in 2012.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Supreme Court. We're doing a lot better with Obama than we would with the other party. Really want Palin's choices, that would still be there long after she's gone?
I'll vote lesser of two evils.
With just enough Republicans voting nay too make them seem disputed, but not enough Republicans voting nay to submarine the nominations. With Republicans supposedly able to stop anything they disagree with, why would they twice cave to nominees that they didn't agree with?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
They couldn't find a reason to disqualify. Look, we got Alito and Roberts out of GW Bush. We got Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan out of Obama. Now, all we have to do is look at this recent Supreme Court decision that said corporations can spend unlimited money on campaigns. The 5–4 decision was in favor of Citizens United. Alito and Roberts voted in favor, and Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor against. Kagan wasn't on the court yet, but it's quite clear which party is the champion of corporate personhood.
And while I have little problem with Sotomayor (though the jury's still out - so to speak), she was replacing a middle of the road right leaning justice in David Souter.
Kagan replaced Stevens, easily the leftmost leader on the Court. And Elena Kagan is no liberal. As Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan went out of her way to skew hiring toward conservative faculty.
With John Paul Stevens being replaced by a woman like that, the Court has probably taken a significant move to the right under Obama. Still, it's tough to tell yet. The beauty and the fright of a lifetime appointment is that the appointees may not turn out like we thought they would.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
into the conversation.
Blue team gud!
like where he said Obama signed a bill defunding ACORN?
with a straight face, that the Dems didn't jump on the slam ACORN wagon?
really?
talk about partisan nonsense.
I know your heart is in the right place, but wtf happened to your mind?
Detailed in my reply to your nonsense here. With links to back it up including the text of the law and the date it was signed by Obama and the dates it was passed by the Democratic House and Senate.
Of course, I forgot to include this little ditty. It explains quite a lot.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
but... those go against emotions!
/sob
it's really a bummer how many people still have the scales over their eyes, actively working against themselves.
I used to think this was mainly the purview of wingnuts, boy was I ever wrong.
What the hell was nadir doing on the panel?
His only party is to himself.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
prior to the '08 elections? Anybody but Obama. Now it can be the progressives slogan, and hey, I'm a lifelong democrat and I really dislike this guy.
A Progressive challenger in the primary may have no chance of winning but a strong showing will force the current administration to accept that we had better be listened to. I volunteered and contributed money in 2008 for Obama. He will get neither in 2012.
to get Obama to see that he is about to lose his base in the next election no matter how bad his Republican opponent may be. I think a primary can be a good thing as long as it stays on issues and doesn't sink into personal sniping. Remember that the last Dem primary got pretty ugly but most of that was forgotten after the convention.
A third party run in the general election is a mistake. It will only ensure a Republican victory.......I will suffer a stroke if I have to see "Hail to the Chief" played for Palin.
I'll vote for a non corporate owned Democrat. Republicans have traditionally represented the dividends and capital gains crowd, while Democrats have traditionally represented the wages and salaries crowd.
The problem with the Democrats is that they have accepted so much corporate money, that they now also represent the dividends and capital gains crowd.
That's why wages and salaries have been stagnant, while the rich grow richer.
I think the current problems with this country is pretty well concisely stated in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/russiatoday#p/u/28/o8A...
2 min, 33 seconds.
"Gerald Celente, the director of the Trends Research Institute, speaks to RT about unemployment, recession, bank robbery and Wall Street hijacking Washington"
We need a candidate that will address the issues raised in this clip, among other things, such as reducing health care costs.
Is there any such animal anymore?
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
What about Al Franken? Dennis Kucinich? I'd be looking at the Democrats that are voting against this tax cut. What about Bernie Sanders, an independent that caucuses with the Democrats?
The thing is, that non corporate positions won't get any time on the corporate media, so a non corporate Democrat is pretty much invisible.
you could have written just that, it's much sorter.
BTW, Weren't the Hillary supporters using a similar argument? Along the lines of how sending an unexperienced black man would be the same as electing Palin as president, since McCain would only last a couple of months in office after he had surely won the election...
Things "change" but the scaremongering and excuses sure stay the same...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
The HRC supporters were not. To make such an allegation, is pure bullshit. Race had nothing to do with it and you know it. Again, to make such an allegation is beneath you. So, why do it?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... I should have used "some" as a qualifier.
The argument still stands: scaremongering being passed as a matter of fact is a sign of desperation.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Stands on one leg. Which nullifies it.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... but if red herring is your thing for dinner tonight. Suit yourself.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
It is you with the red herring. If not, prove it.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Although to be fair I used the term "inexperienced" instead of the more factual "inadequate." My bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6y0jMl7ZiM&fe...
Bon apetit...
As for me, I am more a meat and potatoes kind of guy...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
ok, whatever you say. Never mind all the accusations from the time , what were they called? Puma's? I forget what they were called. But I distinctly remember all the brouhaha about this. Hell, even I was called a racist back then.But hey, what ever floats your boat.
I could go on, but what's the point? You are trying to use a bullshit argument to prove a point that never existed. Have at it bud.
I will say this though, He won didn't he? And by a wide margin. A little over 10 million votes. That right there says your point is bullshit.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Please, take a few minutes to re read my post. I think you did not get my point. At. All.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
That doesn't change a thing .
Perhaps a bit of objectivity is in order on your part.
What you just tried to do, was portray the HRC supporters as a lump some.Then you tried to correct it by saying "some".
Never mind the political war that was going on. Never mind the spin coming from the right. Never mind how the left is treating him now.
So, are you saying that all the criticism from the left is coming from the HRC supporters now? I don't think so.
So, this makes you confused.
Have at it ixnay. I read a lot of your comments. I generally agree with most of them. Well, maybe not most of them, but a good amount.
But on this one, it's sheer bullshit. Have a nice night ixnay.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
... however, next time when you're presented actual video evidence of an event, and you respond with a simple "that never happened" and just call people's arguments bullshit with nothing but your own personal opinion as a justification. Then it seems to me like you're not as interested in having a debate as you are in trying to push a narrative with a framing that can be aptly described as a red herring.
In the spirit of civility in this fine Saturday evening in Cali, I won't address further the latest crop of strawmen you threw my way other than to point out that they sort of validate my assumption that you had not understood my initial point in the least.
Good night.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
That was a rather lengthily way of going about saying you were wrong.
But hey, whatevah.
Do you want to know what I think is funny? That you bought into that fear bullshit. As if no one else did it.
They all do that shit. Every single last one of them. It called campaigning.
But you want to single out one individual or, a group supporting that individual. As being the major players in this. Sheer bullshit.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
this country needs what it gets
Third Party or be swallowed up when the Bilderberg Order is imposed
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
Sad to say it but a primary challenge to O'Bummer is a sure fire way to put Romney or who knows who ... a Republican into the White House . A true progressive would have no chance even if he beat O'Bummer in a primary which is highly unlikely and would weaken O'Bummer against the Repug . Practically speaking we cannot realistically hope for better for another 6 years , my opinion .Everyone is PO'd right now including yours truly , but things will settle back down eventually ... again . I agree GambitLB , O'Donnell needs an anger management class , I like him and his show but his temper gets the best of him , he actually loses control , is a bit too much .
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
and DeMint, Palin, Huckabee, etc...? Talk about nowhere to go. Even if that's the case, how could I possibly believe anything Obama campaigns on? I think that will be his biggest problem.
. . . gets us exactly the same result as going with the bad cop. They're on the same team and have the same objectives.
This dynamic of "nowhere to go" isn't accidental. It's the direct result of a country that believes it has only two choices with both choices selected and controlled by the same interests.
But the attitude here might be changing. The fact that we're even discussing this two years before an election is promising.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
believe anything he says? The choice is, would you like it to take ten years to eat out of a dumpster or would you like to start immediately.
The last thing they want is to provoke European style protests/strikes before the theft is complete. And there are still millions of people to throw out of their homes.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
negative attitude is positives? Geezus, he hasn't even been in office 2 years. I suppose you think dealing with what he has had to deaal witrh is aqs easyb as you sitting on your faqt ass typing out solutions o all the world'as problems. Why TF don't you run for office?
And yes, I think being able to ditch a press conference you just can't handle to go party with a bunch of millionaires while your buddy Bill Clinton tries to bail you out is even easier than sitting on your fat ass.
Had he just sat on his fat ass the Bush/Obama tax cuts for billionaires would have finally expired and funding for Social Security wouldn't be threatened.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
been bitching about just about everything he's done since he took office. Come on fiver, we want to see you run for office and we can bitch about everything you do, as if you could even muster up 10 votes for your fat ass.
It's not my fault you had to watch Obama standing meekly by watching Bill Clinton defend even more tax cuts for the rich (while one in three working people will pay more). It was probably even worse watching him leave for a party and leave Bill Clinton alone at the podium in front of that White House emblem. I think I heard Obama say something like "Let them eat cake." on the way out.
But I didn't do that to you. Barack Obama and an unwavering self-identification with his perfection caused that little embarrassment quite apart from me.
And what's your preoccupation with my ass? I'm not the unflinching Democratic loyalist here. In other words: fat or not, the ass is not my mascot. That also would be Obama. Merry Christmas.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and checked. I didn't say anything about him leaving the podium. Why are you trying to change the subject, again?
Your response appeared pretty hot and more than a bit personal. I've often found that can be the result of embarrassment. And surely watching Obama's cowardly display last night had to be embarrassing for those who still defend his every move while simultaneously trying to claim liberal values.
As far as any "change of subject," I believe you were attempting to make the subject "me." Well, fuck you too, buddy. We've both been on this site long enough for you to know I busted my butt for Obama in the primaries: on this site, on other sites, and working phones and pounding pavement. Same with health care reform. If Health Care for America Now was holding a rally, you could often find my link to a location finder or a petition or an open letter or a donation vehicle right here at C&L. That's my contribution to politics. No, I'm not planning on running for president.
So what? That's hardly a prerequisite for the "privilege" of criticizing a president. That's something I consider a right, and often an obligation. But if that's all you've got left to defend Obama with, I suppose I understand. Letting go wasn't easy for me either even if it did happen earlier on. Moreover, I'm a Cubs fan. I understand holding on to undeserved and unappreciated loyalty; I've been doing it for decades. But I am able to leave that fault to what I consider more meaningless pursuits, like sports.
Peace.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I still can't find where I was defending his actions of yesterday. But knowing what an imagination you've got, maybe you were reading my mind about something I wasn't thinking.
for many of the things you used to decry during the Bush years.
Think.
... friends come and go, enemies accumulate. Look at the turnout this last time. There wasn't any more Republicans voting, instead, Democrats stayed home. I think that a president that is lecturing his base, while engaged in endless bipartisanship with people that would never support him is doomed.
In 2008, some Libertarians voted Obama on the chance that he would reduce military spending, versus McCain who supported 100 year wars. He hasn't shaved a nickel from defense spending, and has lost those people who wished he had.
He's got two years to turn it around, but now, he has a Republican House that's likely to produce gridlock. We'll see.
I have had it with this goddamn wimp. W got any damn thing he wanted, either by reconciliation or recess appointments but Obama simply lacks the cajones, moxie or simply isn't on our side. I think I am becoming a damn Leninist. Maybe what we need is for the cretins to completely take over and bring the whole fucking structure down in ruins before the morons realize what dirty selfish "kill the goose" bastards the Republicans are.
A lot of people that I care about would get hurt in that scenario, and frankly I don't sleep very well with that kind of thought on my conscience. Do you?
Every time the sitting President has been primaried, he's survived only to be defeated in the general election.
Three out of the last five Presidents were elected because a third-party candidate siphoned off enough votes from his challenger's base to throw the election in his favor.
Teddy Roosevelt, massively popular and running against a weak Republican, couldn't even pull it off as a third-party candidate. And Grayson is no TR - yes, he's a loud and strong progressive voice, but he just lost his last election by 18 points. No one who took that kind of beating is viable to run for a higher office in the next election cycle.
...is that at least in my opinion, Obama completely shot any chance he might have had at re-election right in the foot during the recent press conference in which he turned his podium over to Clinton -- and then walked out before it was done. If anything, this choice on his part makes me wonder whether he even has any intention of running for re-election -- because to me, it reeked of someone who not only doesn't have the stones or the stomach for the job anymore but someone who's approaching the point of no longer caring. In fact, I'm finding myself hard pressed to think of many ways in which Obama could have done more to undermine himself.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
I used to think that bribes or threats made him act the way he does, but he's been consistently letting the repugs call the shots since day one. Early on he used drones killing innocent people and he stopped the Spanish judge from pursuing charges against bush. I agree with Nader, he's a con man.
is the media so obsessed with the next elections when they should be talkng about Bernie Sanders taking over the Senate floor and bringing up all the things we should be concerned about for the here and now. I will be concerned about Obama's chances for re-election based on what he does between now and Nov. 2012. I won't base it on the decisions he has made in the less than 2 years he's been in office.
Because Bernie Sanders is taking over the Senate floor and bringing up all the things we should be concerned about for the here and now.
Because with those holding power right now (and with the excuses with the (R) following their name taking the House in a month), people who agree with Bernie Sanders don't have much of a choice but to look to the next elections and consider options other than those who've brought us to this point.
And Bernie Sanders may be one of the options to consider.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I hope to know how everyone who trashed Nader and his voters for Gore "losing" to Bush likes their crow.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-0...
Bush put all the Neocons in charge of foreign policy which got us the war in Iraq. He specifically ran up the deficits with his tax cuts so that Social Security's trust wouldn't be paid back. His Supreme Court picks are lousier than Gore's picks would have been.
I'm a big fan of "instant runoff" also called "ranked voting", which would permit voting for a Nader without inadvertently electing a Bush. But, absent the institution of instant runoff, the current situation requires voting against the greater of two evils.
but Bush's "election" was nothing more than theft.
Nader's candidacy is what made the election close enough that it could be stolen.
And what about Pat Buchanan? No one ever seems to complain that he took votes from Bush.
The political parties are the problem, not the solution.
Both parties vie to maintain the duopoly.
I liked Gore, anyone who could write Earth in the Balance and say that the internal combustion engine was the worse thing to ever happen to the planet, such a person could not be all bad, but what about Joe Lieberman? I have yet to find anything redeeming about him.
But Gore was a lousy candidate.
The mistake that so many make is to think the front men are actually in control.
We have a secret government of the NSA/CIA that acts at the behest of the Oligarchs.
The front men have chains which are pulled regularly from behind the curtain.
The observation often made is that anyone powerful enough and owed enough favors to gain the nomination of the major parties is far too corrupt to do the job of being President
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I didn't want Bush to win. So, no complaint from me.
Gore was such a lousy candidate he couldn't even win his home state - against George W. Bush. We had two choices that election: either the spoiled son of a wealthy politician who owed his entire career to his family's wealth, power and connections or George W. Bush.
Funny thing is, after he had that election stolen, Al Gore became a bit different guy. I guess having the Establishment stab you in the back can change a man. I think if the Al Gore we've seen since the 2000 elections were to take on Bush, Al would wipe up the floor with him.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
One I blamed on Donna Brazile, but maybe I shouldn't have. I don't know. I do know when I see her voice her opinion on any news program I take it with an enormous grain of salt.
... he seemed to be campaigning for Bush even as the Florida recount had not even started.
It becomes even funnier, when the Dems seem to save the best of their vitriol for either their own base, or 3rd parties. Hilarious given the positive effect that 3rd parties had for Clinton's election in 92, and how fundamental the grassroots efforts were to get out the vote for Obama in 08.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
that probably true. Ross Perot probably siphoned off more Bush votes than Clinton votes. That is one election that I wish Instant runoff was in effect. I'd like to know how well Perot would have done if people didn't have to worry about "throwing away" their vote.
... but Perot also made all the difference in 1996 with almost 9% of the votes given Dole lost by 8.5%, if the Repugs were to use the same fallacy of assuming the Reform party's votes belonged to them.
Also, when dealing with historical events and fact, arguments based around alternative realities are useless.
BTW, when people exercise their right to vote, there not such thing as "throwing away" their vote. Such narrative displays a lot of contempt for the Democratic process, even if I am sure you will let me know that is the last of your intentions.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I think that there was stealth Republican money being fed the Nader campaign in recognition that people who voted Nader indeed would be throwing away their vote.
Something like instant runoff would eliminate that aspect.
http://fairvotemn.org/
Nader voters themselves knew that. So, they set up Nader Trader.
We all knew. They shut down the Nader Trader sites. Long after it mattered, an appeals court ruled the Nader Trader sites legal.
Ralph was my first choice, but I knew I needed to vote against Bush, and the evil that he represented. I just wished once the race tightened, and the evil had a significant chance of prevailing, that Nader would have endorsed Gore. There's no doubt in my mind that we would be a lot better off today if that had happened.
... So, you don't like Nader so much that he was your first choice. Was that stealth republican fund the same one they used to finance the black panthers?
Okaaaay.
I assume that the fact that Gore ran a piss poor campaign coupled with an awful running mate, is just too simple and makes waaay too much sense to be taken seriously.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
because he enabled the Bush victory, at a point where it was indeed looking like that very thing could happen.
I don't like Bush, and I don't like anyone who helped him win.
So, before it became clear that Nader helped Bush win, I liked him. Afterwords, I hate him.
I guess that makes me a flip-flopper, doesn't it.
esp Lieberman de facto conceding and siding with Bush even before the absentee ballots had been counted, enabled Bush victory too. In fact they did it so in a much more straightforward manner than whatever contrived alternative reality scenarios involving Nader you can conjure.
So it is safe to assume you do hate the Dems too, no?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
this sorry excuse for a running mate. The campaign was still inept though, and just where did he get the advice to choose him?
making the 2000 election close, than Nader exercising his constitutional right to run for public office.
You can either have a democracy, or you get to have arbitrary standards regarding who is or isn't allowed to run for office. You can't have both. I think that a lot of Dem die hards are as uninterested in the democratic process and its health, as the die hard Republicans have proven to be.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
wants to outlaw a candidate like Nader from running. I think you're a little confused here. I simply don't like Nader because he harmed my interests, in a situation where it was distinctly possible that he would harm my interests and interests of most of the people who post here.
Are you a Fat Cat?
Obama sounded progressive in the primaries, when I even donated money to his campaign.
My support came crashing to a halt with the FISA vote.
Since then he has failed at one campaign pledge after another.
After the primaries I turned to Nader who espoused policy closer to a socialist than anyone I know.
I am a socialist.
And I certainly will not vote for anyone who wants me surveilled.
Obama has certified the efforts of Bush II and even gone beyond deeming that American citizens should be executed.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Obama the President is exactly the same as Obama the candidate. Don't be upset if you feel this way, it's all your fault.
Don't kill me. I'm just parroting the Obama party line. None of which I believe by the way.
j/k
... then why do you feel entitled to his votes? What makes you feel a person who voted for Nader, who you don't agree with obviously, would have voted for a Dem ticket which included a right winger like Lieberman and a founding member of the DLC like Gore?
Gore harmed your interests too by running such an awful campaign compounded with a piss poor approach during the recount. He was outmaneuvered by a mental midget like Bush for crying out loud.
I am not confused in the least. I just think that a lot of you do not grasp the ultimate consequences of some of the logic you're displaying.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/1...
I was 100% aligned with Nader Trader.
The issue was: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
Maybe it wasn't you, but most of us Nader supporters did not want our support of Nader to facilitate Bush's election.
Now you can say until the cows come home, that Nader supporters wanted Bush as the 2nd choice. If so, you may be interested in this bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale.
The Democrats of FDR's time became very progressive with the push of the radicals. This was because of the severity of the Great Depression.
We are headed into a Depression again but results could be very different this time. The radicals have all but been eliminated.
Fascism is more likely on the horizon this time. We are all but there now.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
(and I guess that's debatable) is because of the social programs that have been put in place since - and which the republican party would love to do away with. Without those programs, we'd have soup kitchens and Bush/Obamavilles all over this country.
As long as we have these stop gap measures (meager though they are) will they forestall real reform from ever taking place.
will come from the Republicans. Heil Gingrinch anyone?
Obama has sanctified the efforts of Bush II and gone beyond.
By fiat he has determined that American citizens are to be executed.
There is a long list but I will leave it for another time.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
If Obama had the courage that his bad mouthing of democratic critics implies, he would publicly advocate that a challenger from their ranks take him on.
But he won't do that, will he?
someone from his own party. He seems to give much more weight to the other side than (supposedly) his own.
Susie, u r afraid that the protests in europe might happen here? How is that a bad thing? That is exactly what we need. The workers of this country need to take to the streets and take back their country. Unfortunately, I think if we did stage mass protests, Obama would declare martial law and really screw us. So unfortunately we have to go along for the ride as obama and his rich masters suck the wealth out of our society.
fairly soon. If, and it looks like they will, continue tax cuts for the upper echelon and continue foreclosure fraud with impunity, their momentum will not cease. To see Bubba Clinton support Barry on this tax deal made my stomach turn. I still say Obama is gonna walk into the sunset after his first term with all the perks and Hillary will step up to the plate. I believe this deal was struck during the campaign. Remember when there was a flurry of hush hush meetings between the Clinton camp and Obama's, then Hillary capitulated? She walked away with assurances she would get the Sect. of State position to allow her to play the worldly one. This thread confirms the belief I have, that many have succumbed to the notion that in 2012 Barry will still be the only alternative to the Repugs. So if Hillary is an alternative, she will be in the running. The Clintons want the Whitehouse again, no doubt about it. Wash, rinse, spin and repeat.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1CD2...
but my money is still on the nag to run.
... then, I could see her doing it. But, I don't see a primary battle from Clinton against Obama.
agree.
"...didn't think that anyone who might challenge the president would have much of a chance of winning, but they all agreed that there had better be some push back from the left..."
That's called "telegraphing your punch" and allows your opponent to easily dodge you. And Obama will dodge and weave and continue his plutocratic policies, as long as progressives aren't serious about a serious challenger.
Jesus, when will the progressive movement learn that symbolic, kabuki crap like phone calls and petitions or candidates running only to "make a point" isn't worth a damn, only real, concrete action? Until progressives do finally wake up, it'll all keep getting worse.
Progressives had better figure out the same thing.
It's not complicated. Don't vote for corporate owned Democrats if possible.
Don't vote for Obama, he is corporate certified.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
secondary considerations come up. Think we would have gotten 99 weeks UI out of Republicans? Are we going to do better with court nominees? Do we like Republican ideology, such as hating Mexicans, gays, and so forth? Do we like their desire to make Christianity the country's religion? They run against "intellectuals" - will having a dumbbell make us better off?
It's the bad cop pounding the table and getting so close to our face that he's spitting at us while he yells obscenities about our mamas. Then the good cop pats us on the back, says he feels our pain, and offers us a cigarette and a shoulder to cry on.
So, we go with the good cop. But we never even consider the possibility of calling a lawyer and taking a stand cause we happen to be right. We're just too afraid of that bad cop.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You run to get your message out.
If you get your message out, you may win.
Nader was a real candidate, he never said he didn't stand a chance.
But was he allowed to debate? No
The duopoly happily agreed to keep him out.
We should have seen the two duopolists with Nader and McKinney and whoever was running in debates.
Then the tired scripted message of the two parties would have shown to be the fraud it is.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Obama has already lost 2012, so why not primary him... and lay the groundwork for 2016?
His half size stimulus in early 2009 sealed the fate of his Presidency.
If you think he still might win in 2012, I can see arguments for and against primary-ing him.
But, if you consider that a second victory is really extremely unlikely, due to that one incredibly short sighted decision and his subsequent rejection of his base... well then it's not too soon to begin organizing a progressive Democratic party for the 2016 elections.
Split the party in 2012... and bring it home in 2016.
Because in my view Democrats can kiss the Presidency goodbye in 2012 anyway, primary challenge or no.
but, I think he could lose to Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is very personable, very likable, whereas Palin comes across as abrasive. Personalities matter as much to the American voter as issues.
I find Huckabee to be personable and charming and moderately intelligent... and thus, of course, electable... and therefore as dangerous as a snake.
Palin is perhaps Obama's one hope in 2012, and I can't believe that Republicans will be that dumb. The Presidency is there for the picking for the Republicans, so let's begin working on a progressive Democratic party and candidate to challenge Obama now and win in 2016.
to see Barry get dumped for Dr. Howard Dean. Now that would be justice after picking Emanuel for Chief of Staff instead of Dean and after all Dean did to get Obama into office.
I'd love to see that too.
By governing like a Republican (auditioning for the Carlyle Group, the IMF or Bubba's side-kick) he has alienated every major support group except maybe Blacks, but I can't see why they would be happy with him either. As a result the votes for him in 2012 are just not going to be there (unless the Repubs run an idiot moron like Palin). Agree w/those above who say primay him in 2012, get a head start on 2016. He's toast (and probably wants to give it all away in half the time Bubba did anyway). We can not allow him to continue trashing this country while the Repubs label him a liberal and/or progressive. He's neither, that's why we have to reject him early and utterly.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/o...
Black Agenda Report:
"It was an ugly performance by “an unrepentant, unreconstructed, center-right, corporate operative,” as President Obama defended his “latest grand accommodation with the GOP.” But it is incorrect to say that Obama “caves” to Republicans. His m.o. is far more aggressive – against fellow Democrats, whom he has relentlessly pummeled since his first days in office. With Obama in the White House, who needs Republicans?"
"“Compared to these guys, the president looks mature and pragmatic,” the official said."
There you have it. Mr. Pragmatic, Mr. Bipartisanship, the only "grownup" in the crowd screws his "base" once again. Apparently Obama "gets it," when will his "base?" When will Obama's "base" understand they are his "base"ment? The suites and penthouses are reserved for Right Wing bullies, warmongers, and those hostile to democratic principles. ...
The one thing I will say is that even the "faithful" are starting to "get it," starting to open their eyes to the Manchurian Candidate, White folks anway. Blog after blog, the comments are pouring in. ...
To all you White Libs and Progressives out there, you heard it here first, you have Black folks unequivocal permission to stick it to Obama. It is long past time to send a message to the Dimocraps that enough is enough. (Let alone abandon them altogether) When your Black friends denounce you as racist or roll their eyes at you, or stop having lunch and drinks after work with you, fuck em. Just keep in mind that you are saving them from themselves. Take solace in that fact and do the damn thing. They'll appreciate and understand it later."
Obama, the former lecturer in Constitutional law, signed the unconstitutional bill that de-funded and destroyed a major organizing force for African Americans and the poor generally.
But I guess the Republicans somehow forced him to do that too.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
alone defunded ACORN. There was no bill and Obama had nothing to do with it.
Or maybe you can just try this one:
Or maybe even try ACORN's Wikepedia entry; you can find it here
The bill became Public Law 111-68 after Obama signed it on 10/01/99 You can trace it's history of passage through the Democratic House, the Democratic Senate, and the Democratic White House here. The text can be found here. Section 163 of Division B of that law specifically prohibits Housing and Urban Development from making any payments to ACORN.
There was a bill; Obama signed it; and ACORN was destroyed as a direct result of it.
The law that destroyed ACORN was found to be an unconstitutional bill of attainder on March 10, 2010.
But the former lecturer in constitutional law knew that when he signed it.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
siince Obama wasn't in the Senate or President when ACORN was established. The House is the ones who defunded ACORN. If you are speaking of state funds back in 1999 that is a different story and it would have been the governor if Ilinoise that would have had to sign the bill. ACORN had already been established before 2009 and the house refused to fund them again. There was no bill that would have had to go through the senate too before it could have been signed by Obama.
actually addressing the issue raised, that's for sure.
I guess you haqve a problem with facts too. You guys have to getv a little schooled up. Check it out.
Hey, Schoolhouse rocks!
Corruption favors the wealthy.
getting emotional, or are you just drunk now?
. . . states:
You know, cause you shouldn't have to "waste your time" clicking on some links.
Or admitting that you're simply dead wrong on this one.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
is not addressing what you said. Because it may have effected ACORN because ACORN depended on those funds doesn't mean that ACORN was specifically targeted by Obama. ACORN is still allowed to operate, they just can't be funded by federal funds.
work any harder against yourself?
and no, ron, you still haven't addressed the issue.
but maybe I didn't go far enough. The spending bill was due and he doesn't have a line item veto.
so, you basically just don't give a shit about ACORN, same as Obama.
that's your argument?
Do you think that Obama doesn't know what I know about the kind of legislation that destroyed ACORN?
Do you really think he's that stupid?
Because I don't.
Do you really think that Obama doesn't know the harm that would and did cause?
again, could you possibly work any harder against yourself?
that I know what he knows but since you and fiver are so adament about this, why aren't you out trying to raise funds for ACORN?
I really expect more out of you, ron.
I know you can do better than shoot the messenger.
I know you are able to think things through, and face facts presented to you.
You just don't want to deal with the inevitable result of actually doing that thinking.
You were tricked.
So were a lot of people.
Get over it.
Stop working against yourself.
I was one of the first to say I objected to tax cuts to the super rich but I'm not going to sit by while others call the president names and vilify him for everything he did and not acknowledging the things he has accomplished. I preferred Medicare for all but he got things in the healthcare bill that nobody in previous adminstrations have ever gotten. Is it enough? No! I would have preferred single payer but the opposition, the republicans, the blue dogs, big pharma and the insurance companies would have "NEVER" let that happen. If you expect big changes in government overnight, you had better wake up.
villify?
for being way too much like Bush?
ron, I KNOW it's not ALL Obama's fault, but I, and you, have seen what he has done.
There is, for some reason, an inexplicable amount of blind support over here.
All I care about are actions.
His actions have largely been bad.
He has personally, actively worked against our interests.
He's undermined at numerous times those things that I care about most.
And he's personally attacked us numerous times.
Those small victories that the supporters trot out pale in comparison next to the mountain of fail, not to mention outright hostility from the Pres.
It's not a personality contest for me, I don't care about the person or cult of such, all I care about is the action. The fight. The advocacy.
And what I've seen, the actual things done and supported, and crammed down our throats, I don't agree with.
And he keeps trying to sell me a shit sandwich while pissing down my neck calling it lemonade.
Well, I ain't the one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP70GBehkbY
get us into two wars, Bush did. Obama is listening to the generals, Bush fired them if he didn't like what they said. Bush put us into this position about tax cuts for the rich and trickle down Obama at least is trying to put an end to it. Yes, he caved way too soon and should have included the house and senate in talks. But to compare him to Bush is the greatest insult you can label him with.
ron, first off, just want you to know you're one of my favorite posters over here.
I really believe you are a good person.
but I don't believe anything that you just wrote there.
there is nothing in extending the tax cuts that is good.
those that thought there was some good at the start weren't thinking deeply enough.
bedazzled by bullshit.
and there is a huge poison pill in there for SS.
anyone that doesn't see that very simple, very obvious truth I feel a little sorry for.
anyone that would seriously argue that the President couldn't have come out and explained this to America in a winning way is deluded.
but he didn't.
didn't want to.
and yeah, I know comparing him to Bush is a huge insult?
what of it?
I just don't see that much of a difference, other than I think Obama is better looking.
which isn't that hard, Bush was repulsive.
in any case, I gotta go make some dinner.
have a good night.
what i'm seeing here. I didn't say that I approved of the tax cuts, just the opposite.
You got that right.
(1.) They extend the tax cuts, adding $1 trillion to the debt.
(2.) The new Republican house refuses to raise the debt ceiling.
(3.) Cuts are necessitated by the failure to raise the debt ceiling, starting with not paying back to the Social Security trust fund, the amounts owing.
The debt ceiling and the tax cuts that everyone knows will raise the national debt needs to be resolved at the same time.
I know a slick shyster when I see one, and I see one in Obama. That's the 50% I don't like.
But, he needs help in Congress to pass this bill. If it passes, the blame is not his alone.
It's closed its doors, It's filed for liquidation. It's history.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I just quoted the specific passage that singled out ACORN by name.
And ACORN can't "still operate," It's gone. It closed it's doors for lack of funding.
Kind of the same thing that might have happened to Blackwater had they been targeted. But Blackwater, excuse me, Xe is rolling along just fine courtesy of a nice fat new contract with the State Department.
ACORN destroyed; Blackwater enriched; and you're still drowning in da Nile.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2010/12/calli...
Calling all Obamaholics!
"I am not mad at folks like Glen Ford (although I don't necessarily agree with him. I will take the 50% of what O does right, over the 0% of what the wingnut in charge would be doing right any day) because he has been on Obama's case from day one. ...
Still, you have to wonder; all these leftist and liberals jumping from the good ship O.--- Where are the Obamaholics when you need them?What happened to you bloggers O invited to the White House?----
Watch how you jump ship, folks. Unlike our boy, you can't walk on water. "
I always like to read what the Field has to say.
While I'm closer to Glen Ford positions than I am to Field's, nevertheless what Field says is right. (I will take the 50% of what O does right, over the 0% of what the wingnut in charge would be doing right any day).
In case you're wondering what the 50% is, here's a link.
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/
or the rated link originally provided to me, which I think is a little immature.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
While the idealist in me may say vote for the 3rd party candidate, if the pragmatist tells me I'm going to get 0% instead of 50%, then, I'm going to try to get the half loaf and hope the problem of the political duopoly is fixed with the enactment of instant runoff.
That's only going to happen if the public starts clamoring for instant runoff.
only problem for me is that those things that are in the 50% wrong side are the things I really care about.
and things just keep tilting right, because that's the "less bad" option.
people need to wake up, supporting failure is not making things better.
if Newt is running, if he succeeds, that will be the last election, just like Hitler before him. That is the full blown fascism that Alice X is warning about. Before the internet got going, I remember seeing him on television saying that executions need to be "unpleasant". Isn't it Gingrinch who wants to use laws like Singapore to conduct drug enforcement. Recently, he's calling for jailing Assange as an "enemy combatant". Throw the Constitution out the window with Newt. Newt has stayed up late an awful lot of nights envisioning his fourth reich.
There is a time and place for voting against someone. Bush II was such a time and place, and so would be Gingrich. If someone like a Schwarzenegger was running, then maybe not. (I know he's not eligible). I'm using someone like a Schwarzenegger as an example of someone who is not a complete loon.
As a Canuck I don't really understand your electoral system very well so maybe someone can help me out here. How is a primary challenge from the left going to do anything more than cause Obama to make more stirring progressive speeches full of progressive promises , like he did in the primaries up to, and during, the 2008 election that he will just as quickly abandon once he is back in power (assuming he wins the nomination and then the election). To put it bluntly he has no spine, he's all words, he gives in before the GOP even makes a demand, gives away all his bargaining chips before the bargaining has even begun, and falls for every single GOP (and Blue Dog democrat) underhanded scheme designed to bankrupt the government and turn every service into a privatized service for their corporate friends to rape the taxpayers with.
http://www.thealders.net/blogs
Just call me Dazed & Confused
Obama can make his flowery speeches, but he now has a presidential record to answer for. It all depends who runs against him, if anyone. Someone like Howard Dean, as suggested elsewhere would be very competitive.
but the right wing establishment might have just as well run him out of DC tarred and faethered on a rail. It would never happen.
the right wing doesn't, for the most part, vote in Democratic primaries. Although, myself, I'm thinking of crossing over and voting in the Republican primary for Sarah Palin.
I'd like to see her hold her ground in a debate with either Obama or Dean. I almost crossed in 2008 to vote for Romney over McCain on the grounds that Romney was less electable. But, I wanted to see that Obama beat Hillary, on account of her vote for the Iraq war, and it was close enough to vote in the Democratic primary.
But, right now, it's way too soon. The time to size up Obama's fitness for 2012 is a year from now.
Lawrence apologized for behavior that is applauded when it comes from Grayson himself.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Without a care about re-election for a third term, Obama has no reason to do any of the "hope" and "change" speech lies. You are a fool to think otherwise.
I am impressed with your web resource.
appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission to top-level and key positions in his administration within his first ten days in office. He orchestrated this tax fiasco for the rich. I believe he will then zero in on and capitulate Social Security, he will continue to look the other way regarding fraudulent home foreclosures and Wall St. criminal behavior. After witnessing his condescending attitude towards his base he displayed the other day, not to mention his revolting collaboration with Slick Willy Clinton to sell this pile of dung, I will now wait for the day when Barack will pull the pin and outlaw designated web sites which will be deemed dangerous to national security and the public safety as well as seditious. I also believe he will eventually declare marshal law. This guy is rotten.
that most agree with him that this [primary challenge] is the only way to push the president back in a progressive direction.
What is the point of trying to move obama "back in a progressive direction"? obama has demonstrated beyond doubt that he can't be trusted, that his word means nothing, that he is completely duplicitous; that his "negotiating" approach is to give away what liberals want before even starting with the opposition, getting NOTHING in return.
It is foolhardy to hang on to the notion that obama wants anything that liberals/progressives want. obama, is a corportist, an agent of the plutocrats. For progressives, obama is a Trojan Horse.
Prez Milquetoast, the trojan horse, sold anyone but HIS financial elite down the toilet and the way he accomplished it pretty much means its done. So we will likely have to live with the so-called COMPROMISE.
Now with that said, it doesn't mean we have to live with him. No.. some TRUE progressive should be recruited and we should get out and vote like mad so that person replaces this wuss of a Prez.
Obama is a lost cause. Liberal and progressives causes are not.
It took 8 years of Bush to push the middle toward Obama. Here is where I disagree with Grayson. The middle are not part of the Democratic base. They are not part of the Republican base. They are swing voters. They will respond to aggressive advertisement and media stories of scandal and to how the economy is going. They cannot be counted on. A lot of them watch FoxNews.
It took Bush 8 years to almost destroy the Republican Party. It only took 2 years for Obama to do the same thing to the Democratic Party.
Comments are closed on this entry